xbay wrote:He had no support behind at LSU. How is he suppose to win a championship with other far superior teams out there?

The kid is still young. You can't say he'll just be another player. Of course, you can't say he'll be a star either. But like I said... he's unproven. So while he hasn't proved he'll be a star, he hasn't proved he'll be a bust either.

Most people on here are talking as if he is the second-coming. He is the next Chris Bosh, Lamar Odom, B-Wright, all of that. Until he proves anything, he is worthless, and, knowing Nellie, he will never get the chance to prove himself. He will probably be similar to Arenas, never play, run off with somebody else, and dominate.

too bad arenas did play while he was here with 25mpg. not as much during his rookie season as he should have, but towards the end of his rookie season he showed what he could do and became our point guard the very next year and for the year after.

not attacking you personally, but im getting kind of sick of people saying that nellie doesnt play rookies. he plays rookies that he thinks are ready to instantly make an impact in the game. if randolph can do that, then he will get time....it looks to me like he WILL be able to do that so i believe he WILL get time. webber showed he could make an instant impact and he got time as a rookie. same thing with josh howard at 25mpg as a rookie, if you'd like a more recent example, and even devin harris got 16mpg as a rookie.

and man that mavs team was fun back then with nellie at the helm. not only do people forget he was playing howard as a rookie, but he was also playing, and a lot of times, starting marquis daniels. two rookies. daniels was pretty good then too coming out of auburn, and then avery made him lose all his confidence. but i digress.

so i agree with you 100%. nelson does play rookies. they just need to fit his system.

Quinn Buckner was 4th in minutes played in '76-'77.
Marques Johnson was 1st in minutes played in '77-'78.
Sidney Moncrief was 6th in minutes played in '79-'80.
Paul Pressey was 6th in minutes played in '82-'83.

At GS:

Richmond was 2nd in minutes played in '88-'89.
Hardaway was 3rd in minutes played in '89-'90.
Owens was 3rd in minutes played in '91-'92.
Sprewell was 1st in minutes played in '92-'93.
Webber was 3rd in minutes played in '93-'94.

At Dallas:

Dirk Nowitzki was 6th in minutes played in '98-'99.
Josh Howard was 6th in minutes played in '03-'04.
Marquis Daniels was 7th in minutes played in '03-'04"

Monta and Biedrins, while not rookies, have played considerably during the last 2 years, and they're just now 22 years old. I think the head coach uses a different criteria when determining playing time other than age or length of service in the league.

Well, you guys got David started again. He goes back into the 1970's talking about Coach Nelson playing rookies. I DON'T THINK IT IS A ROOKIE THING, I DON'T THINK HE RECOGNIZE TALENT VERY WELL! If just about everyone saw talent in Wright and Bellinelli, why didn't Coach Nelson? Why does it take Chris Mullin to order Nelson to play the young guys? He didn't order him to play them because they are young. He ordered Nelson to play them because they are talented. Most of the young guys on team was pissed off at Nelson for not getting playing time. POB, Bellinelli, Wright, Azu. Even CJ Watson. These guys watched the Warriors not make the playoffs without getting a chnace to help the Warriors win. I don't give a damn how many games they won last year. IT WAN'T GOOD ENOUGH! Young guys helped every palyoff team. The Warriors didn't play their talented young guys and looked where they finished. OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS AGAIN.

Dirk Nowitzki was 6th in minutes played in '98-'99.Josh Howard was 6th in minutes played in '03-'04.Marquis Daniels was 7th in minutes played in '03-'04"

Monta and Biedrins, while not rookies, have played considerably during the last 2 years, and they're just now 22 years old. I think the head coach uses a different criteria when determining playing time other than age or length of service in the league.

Hmm.... falling off of the face of the earth after '04? I think so... he has played NO Warriors rookie for anything more than scrub minutes. And, frankly, you can point to the 1979 Nellie-player, but that doesnt concern us at all. All I care about is the Warriors and I know that Nellie has not played ANY of the talented young rookies we have.

It should be rather clear where Mullie and Nellie are trying to take the team. Mullin has cleared house and wants to have a nice young core of players. He is bringing in physical players that will compliment his young core and hopefully bring a high degree of energy to the team (hence the BD dropping and shopping of Al). Nellie, wants a more athletic team (hence why he kept Pietrus so long) with players like Randolph (great first step) and Bellini (quick release) and Ellis (one of the quickest players next to Parker, Barbosa) and Mags (a player that gets to the rim and foul line as much the King Le Bron). Al is great for his shooting, bringing in a Rod Higgins type of 3 point sharp shooting, but he doesn't do the other things for a cut throat Western Conference that are needed. He is too slow, can't help on D, doesn't rebound, gets too much offensive fouls in the blocks, not the best passer (hence the Webber reunion flop). If Keith can win the gig, keep the young players playing hard and loyal, have a clear idea of their future roles ... it may not matter what Nellie does this transition year.

Dirk Nowitzki was 6th in minutes played in '98-'99.Josh Howard was 6th in minutes played in '03-'04.Marquis Daniels was 7th in minutes played in '03-'04"

Monta and Biedrins, while not rookies, have played considerably during the last 2 years, and they're just now 22 years old. I think the head coach uses a different criteria when determining playing time other than age or length of service in the league.

Hmm.... falling off of the face of the earth after '04? I think so... he has played NO Warriors rookie for anything more than scrub minutes. And, frankly, you can point to the 1979 Nellie-player, but that doesnt concern us at all. All I care about is the Warriors and I know that Nellie has not played ANY of the talented young rookies we have.

you have a case for wright, which i am pretty sure we can all agree that he deserved more minutes and needed more time last year. but in the case of belinelli, couldn't it be that he just got screwed in the situation? monta had a stellar year improving on top of the most improved season that he had the year before, and buike came out with a bang and was pretty consistent. he SLOWLY dropped off toward the end of the season, but still not enough to play belinelli over him, considering beli has no D.

and correct me if im wrong, but didnt he leave the mavs with avery in the middle of the 04-05 season and didnt start coaching again until he came to us for the 06-07 season? which would explain his dropoff since 04

"the victorious warrior wins first, and then goes to war; the defeated warrior goes to war first, and hopes to win."- The Art of War

If you'll notice, the rookies who got to play a lot a few years ago, for the most part, have been 4 year college players. Guys who weren't kids without basketball training.

The rookies coming in now are would-be college sophmores, with little, actual, basketball training. They have to get their training on-the-job. If your team is trying to make the playoffs, all players have to earn their playing time.

If the Ws play their rookies, just because, then the Ws aren't trying to make the playoffs. They're playing for the future, like the Sonics did last year.

I don't think you can cry about playing the rookies and expect to, realistically, make the playoffs. IMO, if you think a team can be a contender with college sophmores in the lineup, not name Jordan, KG, LBJ or Magic, your delusional.

The gaps in Nelson's coaching career without rookies, Nelson was out of coaching or didn't have rookies, or in the case of recently, didn't have rookies capable of playing on a playoff contender.

David wrote:If you'll notice, the rookies who got to play a lot a few years ago, for the most part, have been 4 year college players. Guys who weren't kids without basketball training.

The rookies coming in now are would-be college sophmores, with little, actual, basketball training. They have to get their training on-the-job. If your team is trying to make the playoffs, all players have to earn their playing time.

If the Ws play their rookies, just because, then the Ws aren't trying to make the playoffs. They're playing for the future, like the Sonics did last year.

I don't think you can cry about playing the rookies and expect to, realistically, make the playoffs. IMO, if you think a team can be a contender with college sophmores in the lineup, not name Jordan, KG, LBJ or Magic, your delusional.

The gaps in Nelson's coaching career without rookies, Nelson was out of coaching or didn't have rookies, or in the case of recently, didn't have rookies capable of playing on a playoff contender.

What does "WAN'T GOOD ENOUGH" mean in English?

David,

I saw your name and thought to myself 100-1 odds it is about Nelson. You never disappoint. Of your posts thus far, what percentage do NOT involve a defense of Don Nelson? Is there any other aspect to this game or team that interests you? You seem like a bright enough guy, but your focus is incredibly narrow. I bet you cannot do 10 posts in a row without defending Nelson directly or indirectly...I know you are not Don Nelson (you write too well) but seriously. Are you a friend, a relative, or just a Stan-style fan?

To Live is A Value Judgment - Albert Camus
3 reasons for living: Jazz, Hoops and women

David wrote:If you'll notice, the rookies who got to play a lot a few years ago, for the most part, have been 4 year college players. Guys who weren't kids without basketball training.

The rookies coming in now are would-be college sophmores, with little, actual, basketball training. They have to get their training on-the-job. If your team is trying to make the playoffs, all players have to earn their playing time.

If the Ws play their rookies, just because, then the Ws aren't trying to make the playoffs. They're playing for the future, like the Sonics did last year.

I don't think you can cry about playing the rookies and expect to, realistically, make the playoffs. IMO, if you think a team can be a contender with college sophmores in the lineup, not name Jordan, KG, LBJ or Magic, your delusional.

The gaps in Nelson's coaching career without rookies, Nelson was out of coaching or didn't have rookies, or in the case of recently, didn't have rookies capable of playing on a playoff contender.

What does "WAN'T GOOD ENOUGH" mean in English?

Well David to answer your fist question, it should have read: WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH!. Now is that better. Sorry I'm not a better typist. However it doesn't change the fact rookies play everywhere but Golden State. Tayshuin Prince was an intricate part of a playoff team his rookie year. How about Dwight Howard? Carmelo Anthony in his rookie year. Yao Ming and Luis Scola their rookie years. David are you honestly saying that Coach Nelson was right by not playing Branden Wright and at a lesser extent Marco Bellinelli. Are you saying that POB was so bad that he couldn't ever get on the court.

I have to disagree with you also. These gus coming into the league now are a lot more ready than when the first group of high school guys started like Bill Willougby and Moses Malone. These guys have been playing against the pros and college stars for years in the off seasons. Even our own Bay Area have a great semi-pro league. That's why Shariff Abdul Rahim and Jason Kidd were ready when they first stepped on the court. They played one year of college ball just because the rules dictated it.

You can make up any excuse for Coach Nelson not playing Wright. but he made a misjudgement about that young man. I also think he was wrong by not playing POB. Maybe that's why he is not in the HOF.

David wrote:If you'll notice, the rookies who got to play a lot a few years ago, for the most part, have been 4 year college players. Guys who weren't kids without basketball training.

The rookies coming in now are would-be college sophmores, with little, actual, basketball training. They have to get their training on-the-job. If your team is trying to make the playoffs, all players have to earn their playing time.

If the Ws play their rookies, just because, then the Ws aren't trying to make the playoffs. They're playing for the future, like the Sonics did last year.

I don't think you can cry about playing the rookies and expect to, realistically, make the playoffs. IMO, if you think a team can be a contender with college sophmores in the lineup, not name Jordan, KG, LBJ or Magic, your delusional.

The gaps in Nelson's coaching career without rookies, Nelson was out of coaching or didn't have rookies, or in the case of recently, didn't have rookies capable of playing on a playoff contender.

What does "WAN'T GOOD ENOUGH" mean in English?

David,

I saw your name and thought to myself 100-1 odds it is about Nelson. You never disappoint. Of your posts thus far, what percentage do NOT involve a defense of Don Nelson? Is there any other aspect to this game or team that interests you? You seem like a bright enough guy, but your focus is incredibly narrow. I bet you cannot do 10 posts in a row without defending Nelson directly or indirectly...I know you are not Don Nelson (you write too well) but seriously. Are you a friend, a relative, or just a Stan-style fan?

I hope you're not another one of those people who tries to control the posts of others besides themselves. I'd be disappointed that there's another one.

Let me point something out, that you probably haven't noticed. I'm responding to something. I didn't just start a thread about how great Don Nelson is. I'm trying to address a misconception, or an instance of misinformation. The subject, that I, didn't start, was Don Nelson. I'm not sure why it's cool to express irrational hate for someone but uncool to offer a rebuttal to that irrational hate.

For every post that I'm defending Nelson, that means there's a post that prompted me to respond, yet I'm considered narrowly focused. What about the people I'm responding to? Aren't they just as narrowly focused or are there several I'm responding to? Am I the one making things up and throwing it out there or am I the one looking things up to offer an informed opinion?

If you're wondering how many of my posts are about Nelson, do a search by name. You might be surprised.

David wrote:Let me point something out, that you probably haven't noticed. I'm responding to something. I didn't just start a thread about how great Don Nelson is. I'm trying to address a misconception, or an instance of misinformation. The subject, that I, didn't start, was Don Nelson. I'm not sure why it's cool to express irrational hate for someone but uncool to offer a rebuttal to that irrational hate.

I find that funny. You say that every time, "I am trying to address a misconception." Leave us be! If all you are trying to do is correct us, leave! I'm sure the Lakers have all kinds of fans that can use a guy to correct them. I, for one, dont want to be corrected by a whole lot of people, especially from a guy that adds nothing to the board.

David wrote:If you're wondering how many of my posts are about Nelson, do a search by name. You might be surprised.

Just because you dont say the word "Nelson" or "Nellie" does not mean that you are not talking about him. I would be willing to bet that less than ten percent of the posts on the board from you are anything other than Nellie. Even then, that ten percent is you correcting us.

Frankly, you are the most annoying person on this board. Your narrow-mindedness and the way you correct us has driven me away from the board on two or three seperate occassions. As I said, you add nothing to this board. Go away.

The Coooach wrote:Well David to answer your fist question, it should have read: WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH!. Now is that better. Sorry I'm not a better typist. However it doesn't change the fact rookies play everywhere but Golden State. Tayshuin Prince was an intricate part of a playoff team his rookie year. How about Dwight Howard? Carmelo Anthony in his rookie year. Yao Ming and Luis Scola their rookie years. David are you honestly saying that Coach Nelson was right by not playing Branden Wright and at a lesser extent Marco Bellinelli. Are you saying that POB was so bad that he couldn't ever get on the court.

I have to disagree with you also. These gus coming into the league now are a lot more ready than when the first group of high school guys started like Bill Willougby and Moses Malone. These guys have been playing against the pros and college stars for years in the off seasons. Even our own Bay Area have a great semi-pro league. That's why Shariff Abdul Rahim and Jason Kidd were ready when they first stepped on the court. They played one year of college ball just because the rules dictated it.

You can make up any excuse for Coach Nelson not playing Wright. but he made a misjudgement about that young man. I also think he was wrong by not playing POB. Maybe that's why he is not in the HOF.

Tayshaun Prince-23rd pick in the draft. As a 22 year old rookie, he played in 42 games.
Dwight Howard- 1st pick in the draft, 2004.
Carmelo Anthony- 3rd pick in the draft, 2003.
Yao Ming- 1st pick in the draft, 2002.
Luis Scola He was a 27 year old rookie.

You want to compare these guys to:
POB-9th pick in 2006 draft. 20 year old rookie. How good is he?
BWright-8th pick 2007 draft. 20 year old rookie.
Belinelli-18th pick 2007 draft. 21 year old Euro.

David wrote:Let me point something out, that you probably haven't noticed. I'm responding to something. I didn't just start a thread about how great Don Nelson is. I'm trying to address a misconception, or an instance of misinformation. The subject, that I, didn't start, was Don Nelson. I'm not sure why it's cool to express irrational hate for someone but uncool to offer a rebuttal to that irrational hate.

I find that funny. You say that every time, "I am trying to address a misconception." Leave us be! If all you are trying to do is correct us, leave! I'm sure the Lakers have all kinds of fans that can use a guy to correct them. I, for one, dont want to be corrected by a whole lot of people, especially from a guy that adds nothing to the board.

David wrote:If you're wondering how many of my posts are about Nelson, do a search by name. You might be surprised.

Just because you dont say the word "Nelson" or "Nellie" does not mean that you are not talking about him. I would be willing to bet that less than ten percent of the posts on the board from you are anything other than Nellie. Even then, that ten percent is you correcting us.

Frankly, you are the most annoying person on this board. Your narrow-mindedness and the way you correct us has driven me away from the board on two or three seperate occassions. As I said, you add nothing to this board. Go away.

IMO, what you're really saying is, you can't stand it when someone shows you that you're wrong and has something more than opinion to back it up. Rather than refute what I say, with facts of your own, you go on the offensive against me, rather than the subject of the discussion. Brilliant strategy. It beats having an informed opinion, every time.